Regents of University of California v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
4 Cal. 5th 607, 413 P.3d 656 (2018)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Damon Thompson (defendant) was a University of California at Los Angeles student. Thompson started experiencing auditory hallucinations and having classroom and dormitory problems. When campus police responded to Thompson’s complaint that he heard voices coming through his dormitory walls and believed students were going to shoot him, Thompson was referred to the university’s psychological services for treatment. Thompson continued to experience and report auditory hallucinations, and although he denied an intent to harm anyone, he began identifying students who he claimed called him stupid. While in the chemistry laboratory, Thompson stabbed fellow classmate Katherine Rosen (plaintiff) with a knife. Rosen sued the University of California Regents and several employees (collectively, UCLA) (defendants) for negligence, alleging that they were aware Thompson was dangerous and failed to warn or protect Rosen or control Thompson’s foreseeable violent acts. UCLA moved for summary judgment, arguing that universities do not have a duty to protect adult students from criminal acts. The trial court denied the motion, finding that UCLA did have such a duty to its students. UCLA appealed. A divided court of appeal panel reversed because Rosen could not establish duty. The state supreme court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Corrigan, J.)
Concurrence (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
